Nick Dynice's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

from the favorites dept

This week's favorites post comes from Nick Dynice, a long-term, insightful member of the Techdirt community.

This week Mike and fellow contributors have been on a rampage, taking NYT to task with 7 posts, as of Friday afternoon, about the ridiculousness of the pay-wall.

But, my favorite post of the week was on Paul Vixie's explanation of why COICA is a dumb idea. Whenever the not-so-tech savvy entertainment industry and government get together to come up with a way to beat the emergent nature of the internet (which was designed as a worldwide copy machine that can survive a nuclear war), they just can't win. In this case, Vixie suggested that if the US government mandates DNS blocking with COICA, there will be the unintended consequence of incentivising someone to create an alternate DNS, which will break the universal naming premise that made the internet a success, and will not stop infringement. When Vixie is developing his own tech solutions, he actually thinks through all of these scenarios since he has to live with results -- unlike our Congress critters, who are out of office in a matter of years. Whenever I read about cases like this, I know there is some 80's movie narrative that explains the point pretty well and shows how things can spiral out of control. There is always some sort of pompous villain who creates obstacles for our heros. One such narrative is in the film Ghostbsters. In the scene where the character Walter Peck from the EPA shuts down the Laser Containment Unit because it is "in violation."

Peck shuts it down and all of the ghosts that the Ghostbsters had caught are released back into NYC. It is Putts Law in action. "Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand."

My other favorite post was about how The Newspaper Guild has a problem with Huffington Post using a different compensation model than legacy news organizations. Ironically (or not) plenty of anonymous critics came by to contribute their counter arguments to Techdirt for free in the comments.

The second most popular post was about the "infringement vs. inspiration" debate. If being inspired by or borrowing something is piracy, then let's all be pirates. The flood of troll commenters missed the point, as they always do, by insisting that the same examples Mike used were indeed determined to be infringement by law. But laws are man-made construct that can be changed and, in fact, were more permissive in the past. Isn't it time they change to reflect current realities?

The post with the most comments by far this week (a couple hundred so far) was regarding the tortured legal interpretations that many lawyer critics are using to defend the accidental seizure of a domain that took down 84,000 sites, with Mike debating many ACs with lots of "lols" and "insightfuls" being awarded. A truly religious debate.

A bit ironic

But laws are man-made construct that can be changed and, in fact, were more permissive in the past. Isn't it time they change to reflect current realities?

I wish they would do that with speeding laws, and with credit card laws too. If people aren't paying their credit cards, why not pass a law that allows us to just ignore the balance once every 2 years and get a complete reset without risk? Why can't I drive my Audi at 100 MPH on a highway who's speed limits were set in the 50's for cars with all the grip of greased plastic?

Oh, wait. Perhaps there are other reason that just what a noisy minority wants. Perhaps those who enjoy piracy aren't really looking at the long term effects. Perhaps maybe by allowing freedom to use other people's copyrighted works without permission we would get a flood of great, wonderful, incredibly artful... more of the same? I like the idea of that route being blocked so people actually have to move forward, instead of just repeating the past.

You get your bonus cup of koolaid today for your insightful, meaningful summary of everything Mike hopes that masses fell for this week.

Re:

"I wish they would do that with speeding laws, and with credit card laws too."

Way to miss the point, again. The point isn't that we should change the law because people are breaking it, the point is that people are breaking it because it is bad law. If speeding laws are being broken because of their impracticality then yes, they probably should be changed.

"Perhaps maybe by allowing freedom to use other people's copyrighted works without permission we would get a flood of great, wonderful, incredibly artful... more of the same?"

Great, so you admit that you're against that sort of thing. If only we had a name so that fact could haunt you. Culture is built on "more of the same", even the culture that doesn't attract lawsuits.

"I like the idea of that route being blocked so people actually have to move forward, instead of just repeating the past."

Yes, because it's the people doing YouTube mashups who are stuck in the past.

Re:

"I wish they would do that with speeding laws, and with credit card laws too. If people aren't paying their credit cards, why not pass a law that allows us to just ignore the balance once every 2 years and get a complete reset without risk?"

Do we really need to get into the financial crisis currently happening because of Wall Street, government, bad incentives, and over extended credit?

" Why can't I drive my Audi at 100 MPH on a highway who's speed limits were set in the 50's for cars with all the grip of greased plastic?"

Re:

Re:

And because I missed this part when I hit enter:
"Perhaps maybe by allowing freedom to use other people's copyrighted works without permission we would get a flood of great, wonderful, incredibly artful... more of the same? I like the idea of that route being blocked so people actually have to move forward, instead of just repeating the past."

Not your choice, not your problem.

People create from what they like and do so in various ways. Some draw based on Mickey Mouse on DeviantArt, others make music based on samples. Having the government or any one entity "control" that expression is beyond stupid and intruding.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

The point isn't that we should change the law because people are breaking it, the point is that people are breaking it because it is bad law. If speeding laws are being broken because of their impracticality then yes, they probably should be changed

But aren't the impractical? The interstate system was built in a time where cars had poor traction, poor stability, were death traps in an accident, and took forever to stop with their heavy weights and inefficient breaking systems. Modern cars, even the lowest economy car, has abilities that far surpass the cars of the 50s, example, and have safety features that they could never have dreamed of at that point. Yet, here we are, still driving along at speeds that are "safe" for those very poor quality cars.

It's like having high speed internet and a low bandwidth cap, or building an amazing new football stadium with a single 3 foot door as the entrance and exit for 100,000 people.

People break the speed laws every day, they are bad laws.

But you see, underlying all of it is a legitimate government interest: The safety of the people, to keep us literally from harming ourselves. Our desires, our wants, and our actions sometimes can cause harm we cannot see or understand.

So claiming that copyright should go because it is a "bad law" or "many people are breaking law" just isn't a very good argument.

Re: Re: Re:

"So claiming that copyright should go because it is a "bad law" or "many people are breaking law" just isn't a very good argument."

It also isn't an argument anyone made here. I mean, I'm all for scrapping the vast majority of copyright law, but that wasn't what we were talking about.

As you bring it up though, there's a key difference between speeding laws and copyright laws. One's aim is to save lives and the other is to create an economic incentive (American and British copyright, anyway). The simple idea that we shouldn't scrap copyright because we shouldn't scrap speeding laws doesn't even glance at the difference between the two.

Re: Re: Re:

It's like having high speed internet and a low bandwidth cap, or building an amazing new football stadium with a single 3 foot door as the entrance and exit for 100,000 people.

People break the speed laws every day, they are bad laws.

You actually make a very good case for reviewing speed limits - which totally undermines the point you were trying to make. Well done!

But you see, underlying all of it is a legitimate government interest: The safety of the people, to keep us literally from harming ourselves. Our desires, our wants, and our actions sometimes can cause harm we cannot see or understand.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Government intervention in economic interest has dire consequences. The government should be a neutral party and allow to come up the best of the ideas put forth.

For them to support copyright enforcement is a step in the wrong direction. Once the government goes down that road, it's like a bull in a china shop simply because of how hard it is to change the protocols put forth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Economic interest and public safety are both valid government concerns. Should they ignore one or the other to make your life easier?"

Should they need to? That seems like a false dichotomy. Scrapping copyright would have no effect on public safety and the arguments used to scrap copyright wouldn't apply to scrapping speeding laws. You seem intent on tying the issues together when the only thing they seem to have in common are that they're both laws people tend to ignore.

Re: Re: Re:

Speed limits were put in place because it was determined that it would reduce fuel consumption, not just make it safer. To say that speed limits are impractical is completely wrong. With a regulated speed limit that the majority of traffic obeys, it's actually safer because everyone is going the same speed. This a makes it safer to change lanes and otherwise navigate the roads because it's consistent.

Copyright has none of these features. It doesn't make the economy less dangerous, the lack of it makes it more progressive because of the lack of restriction. Nobody will come to harm because someone decided to ignore limitations.

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I once committed an act of copyright infringement so harsh that a bunch of people died. Some were left in a coma and traffic was backed up for days. I was even charged with vehicular manslaughter, that's how bad it was.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You actually make a very good case for reviewing speed limits

Actually, no. The point is that, unless you look at the bigger interests and the overall reasons, it is pretty easy to come up with reasons to get rid of laws or to modify them. But when you actually look at the bigger picture (something Mike hates to do), you can see reasons why those laws are in place, and you can see the benefits to society of having them.

Now, don't get me started on the question of why you can die for your country at 18, but can't drink or gamble until you are 21. That one is harder to explain :)

Not even close. "Nanny" doesn't know best, or know anything. The law is one of those things that doesn't evolve very quickly, which helps it to avoid being "flavor of the day". It's why bills can't be passed without a number of steps and the agreement of both houses and the President, because otherwise the law could shift rapidly to pander to personal wants instead of longer term needs.

The laws are written like this for a reason. If you want to change the copyright law, work to change the law. Just ignoring it and working against it, bitching all the way and looking for loopholes to avoid it doesn't help your cause. It just makes you look arrogant, willing to ignore the "overall good" for your own personal gain.

Re: Re:

Jay, if you are aware of it, the number of "unlimited speed" locations in Germany are shrinking all the time. Most of the Autobahn now is limited at 120-140kph. It's done to promote safety in areas where unlimited speed is no longer in the public's best interest, even if they could still do it.

As for the "speed cameras" thing, poor application of a law doesn't invalidate the concept, only where some politicians are willing to go to make money. Plus linking to techdirt is never a good idea, because the site is only Mike's opinions, not facts.

One reason the article was problematic was embodied in its title. The article was directed to what were considered creative uses of existing works. In the lexicon of copyright law such uses are generally termed "derivative works", and "fair use" is a legitimate issue to be raised and considered.

"Piracy", however, is generally something altogether different. It is not the creation of a new work based upon a preexisting work, but typically the creation of a copy for consumption by others in lieu of purchasing or otherwise securing a lawful copy.

For a coherent discussion to ensue, the distiction between what have been called "creative uses" and "consumptive uses" should be kept in mind.

While there may be some exceptions, for the most part industry associations such as the RIAA, the MPAA, and the BSA have expressed positions regarding "piracy" that generally embody the above distinction, i.e., copying and distribution that reflects a "consumtive use".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The law is one of those things that doesn't evolve very quickly, which helps it to avoid being "flavor of the day"."

It depends on who's pushing for the laws. Big corporations got the DMCA passed relatively quickly in response to the uprising of digital technology and increasing Internet communications. ACTA seemed to be going along pretty quickly, though some public resistance seems to be slowing it down, but the point is that the laws are going in the wrong direction. Heck, industry was even invited to the negotiations and the public wasn't. and, so what if laws are slow to change, what's wrong with demanding that bad laws change fast. I demand that these bad IP laws change immediately and I want most of them completely destroyed. They're bad laws, if they changed tomorrow it would be too late because they should have been substantially repealed a long time ago.

"bitching all the way"

Perhaps part of what is required to change the law is to inform people about its problems. In other words, we need to make public complaints about the law. The government certainly doesn't seem to listen to anyone other than their corporate sponsors. So part of the purpose of this discussion is to help get more support that opposes the laws exactly to influence its change.

"and looking for loopholes to avoid it doesn't help your cause."

What's wrong with looking for loopholes to avoid it? Instead of supporting copy'right' content, and hence supporting those who make copy'right' content (which gives them money that can be used towards more frivolous lawsuits, campaign contributions, and lobbying) we can find loopholes through supporting those who make CC licensed content. Corporations always find legal loopholes, why should they be the only ones allowed to do so? What, you expect me to resist copy'right' by buying copywritten material from those corporations responsible for these laws? No, I think a loophole is in order.

and if you're referring to things like fair use, then it's legal and there is nothing wrong with using such loopholes. It's kinda stupid to try and change an aspect of a law that doesn't need changing, why not just exercise those legal 'loopholes' that were intentionally put there for good reason. Nothing illegal about it.

This title and the ensuing article was little more than a harangue against those whose interpretion of existing case law may happen to differ with that of others.

There will always be persons, whether attorneys or not, who are so locked into a position that nothing will persuade them otherwise. However, in the case of attorneys the vast majority are able to entertain competing arguments, and then proffer opinions based upon their review and understanding of statutory and case law. Just because one may in good faith proffer an opinion that the seizures of domain names comport with what he/she understands to be the law relevant to a "due process" inquiry, it certainly does not mean that a "loophole" is being exploited.

What it does reflect is that terms like "due process", "probable cause", "reasonable man", "preponderance of evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt", etc. are not matters that can be determined with mathematical precision. It would be nice is this was the case, but the law within our system of jurisprudence is quite unlike a law of nature.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let me be more specific so that there is no ambiguity here. The word "loophole" generally refers to not breaking the letter of the law, but breaking the intent of law. If you are using the word 'loophole' to refer to things like fair use, the intent of the law has not been broken because fair use was intentionally put in the law so that people can exercise it. When corporations use legal loopholes, which they often do, they break intent of law without breaking the letter of the law.

So when I say that corporations always find legal loopholes, they are breaking the intent of law. But using fair use isn't really a loophole because the intent of law wasn't broken. So there is a distinction between using fair use as a 'loophole' (because it's not really a loophole since the intent wasn't broken) and big corporations breaking the intent of law as a loophole.

Otherwise, I'm not really sure what you mean by loophole. If you're using the word "loophole" to mean "breaking the law" you should have just said breaking the law, since the word loophole (with reference to law) is mostly associated with finding something that doesn't break the letter of the law but breaks its intent.

and, if breaking the laws is what you meant then I agree, we should not resist copy'right' laws by intentionally breaking them (though, if your radio is on too loud and your neighbors can hear it, it could technically be infringement. If you watch a movie and you invite too many friends over to watch it with you, you could technically be infringing). and most on Techdirt agree with that too, including MM.

Re:

"In the lexicon of copyright law such uses are generally termed "derivative works", and "fair use" is a legitimate issue to be raised and considered."

I think you missed the word "if" in the title. Not that he supports breaking the law, just that if such and such were (perhaps legal) piracy (if there is such a thing as legal piracy. For instance, say if copy'right' law didn't exist and people copied all they wanted and it is still considered piracy) then he supports 'piracy'.

Re:

"This title and the ensuing article was little more than a harangue against those whose interpretion of existing case law may happen to differ with that of others."

"However, in the case of attorneys the vast majority are able to entertain competing arguments, and then proffer opinions based upon their review and understanding of statutory and case law."

So (in the title and the article) Mike expresses his opinion that serious constitutional issues are being ignored and you consider his expression a harangue? Maybe it is you who is "so locked into a position that nothing will persuade" you otherwise. You certainly don't seem capable of 'entertaining competing arguments', given the way you attack them.

Re: Re:

Heck, Mike even allows dissenting comments on his blog, unlike the pro IP mainstream mainstream (television) media that only entertains pro - IP propaganda. IP maximists have absolutely no room to talk in this regard because they are the worst hypocrites in existence.

Re:

Oh, wait. Perhaps there are other reason that just what a noisy minority wants.

If the people doing it are a noise minority then there is no real problem is it? and one can make the same statement about you people, you are just a minority screaming loud.

Quote:

I like the idea of that route being blocked so people actually have to move forward, instead of just repeating the past.

Hmmm...like the Amen break that created entire new genres of music based on a six seconds drum beat that was stolen and it is used to this day.

Check out the history of the Amen break on Youtube.

The good thing about it is that you can't do nothing about it, you can destroy business but society will continue its march to progress with or without people like you, society want be curraled into the tragedy of the anti-commons.

Quote:

You get your bonus cup of koolaid today for your insightful, meaningful summary of everything Mike hopes that masses fell for this week.

Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

But you see, underlying all of it is a legitimate government interest: The safety of the people, to keep us literally from harming ourselves. Our desires, our wants, and our actions sometimes can cause harm we cannot see or understand.

Stop the fantasy now please, we all know that speeding limits are now revenue factories for the states and counties, they have been long ago transformed into something else and it has nothing to do with safety.

Also, no government should prevent their own people from harming themselves if that is what they want to do.

I remember reading about how the government forcible took people from their houses in New Orleans and shot their pets was that good?

But I do think you are right on harms we can't see, copyright is a horrible concept that was enacted not to protect people but to protect kings and queens, it is unbelievable that in the 21th century we still have granted monopolies by the state.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What safety concerns are there about copyright?

And if economic concerns are really a problem then, weaker copyrights is better than a stronger one because it allows more people to make use of something to make money creating a bigger market thus moving more money thus creating more jobs, thus generating more wealth instead of the current system that locks people out and don't generate nearly us much as others could be doing.

Just look at Google they alone make are a fourth of the size of the music industry and they give a lot for free.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, when I use the term "loophole", one example would be the way that torrent sites aren't infringing, but exist only because of infringing content. People acting that trackers and torrent files aren't part of the process of infringing, etc. You know, pushing the limits of the law, playing games to avoid prosecution. Some people may call them "playing by the rules", but at the end of the day, the intentions remain the same: to pirate stuff.

Fair use isn't a loophole. It is a legal grey area that has few (if any) absolutes to it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

you can see reasons why those laws are in place, and you can see the benefits to society of having them.

Actually is exactly why I can't see those benefits is the why I complain about it all the time.

What I do see is EMI going under and Google going up, you don't need to be a rocket scientists to see which approach is bringing in money but despite that simple observation of how things work people choose to ignore economics and go with the absurd that copyright has become.

Quote:

The laws are written like this for a reason. If you want to change the copyright law, work to change the law. Just ignoring it and working against it, bitching all the way and looking for loopholes to avoid it doesn't help your cause. It just makes you look arrogant, willing to ignore the "overall good" for your own personal gain.

That is exactly what everybody in here is doing including you, nobody here is happy with the laws the way they are, everybody wants to change them in one direction or another, you are just sad that we want something different from what you want and that we actually do have appealing ideas to spread around.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And by the way the first step to change laws is bringing attention to them, which is what a lot of people are doing it right now.

One way to do that is ignoring the law and showing to you people how things really work.

Doesn't matter what you think or want things to be, the reality on the ground is that anyone can pirate anything and there is little or nothing you can do about it.

Even you can check that out by yourself and get all the proof you need, just try to copy a CD, it is as simple as a drag and drop operation, then you can send that to all your friends by email, USB, HDD, internet, BluTooth, LAN or the internet.

Have you tried a program for rats? Microsoft did they offer rewards for people denouncing others ask them if it stopped anything.

What all this nonsense copyright created was ways for people to fight back and continue to do the same things they been doing but legally.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"but exist only because of infringing content."

Not all torrents direct to infringing content, some direct to content that doesn't infringe. The law does take down torrent sites that mostly just direct to infringing content, so I'm not sure what your point is, but those that exist to direct to non-infringing content should remain.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

He also keeps allowing you to comment, which is more than I can say for other places that don't allow anonymous anywhere.

There are no dissenting voices in other places.

This is one of the very few places where people can say things.

Maybe what you don't like is the torrent of dissenting opinions that people express against your point of view.

Maybe you should try Physicsorg, you will be trashed there too, also on Youtube, Popscience and a miriad of others websites that I browsed I saw the same responses when people try to defend copyright.

But you know that don't you, that is why you are anonymous, because it could bring real life consequences to your carreer, if it was so just and had public support artists wouldn't have to hide their faces and be concerned about the fall in sales.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

I like the term hyperbole it describes exactly what the industry tries to do, it spreads all the hyperbole about harm, losses, the end of the world all the while claiming increased sales and bla bla bla.

They call sharing culture, breaking the breath with thy brother a crime now, that is real hyperbole.

Re: Re: Re:

Oh like the hyperbole of trying to mix safety issues with copyrights and try to make them seem the same?

Or the hyperbole of people trying to justify irrational laws that do more harm than good trying to expand copyrights?

Or the hyperbole about how the intent of congress is all about the people and their needs while passing laws that only benefit a few that can "donate" to political campaigns or the hyperbole about how politicians get invited to dinners and come out defenders of the just and right cause of copyrights?

You think people are stupid?
You think people don't see what is happening?

Re: Re: Re:

You remind me of Idi Amin Dada, he used to say the same things all the time with his buffoonery and incidentally he was also a butcher to his own people.

His own arguments to kill his people was to label them terrorists and criminals, create closed circles and bath them in gifts while executing their opposition, that is what copyrights do for crazy people it empowers them to get bold and abuse it.

Re: Re: Re:

Anyone who says that automakers should have the right to stop other from sharing their cars is clearly crazy, anyone who tells people they need to pay the automakers to use their cars is crazy and so is people trying to say that sharing music, movies, books or ideas is a criminal, the real criminals are people blinded by greed that are inept to survive and wouldn't be able to do so on their own and depend on the charity of others to do it, trying to dictate how others should live their lifes.

Re: Re: Re:

"No, the concern they have expressed does have merit, "

Because without 95+ year copy protection lengths, artists would starve and no one would ever create any art. Yes, that has merit alright. and at least someone has made some false argument that 95+ year copy protection lengths are somehow beneficial to society, despite the fact that such an argument has absolutely no merit, or else we wouldn't have such absurd laws. Or what about any of the following links?

Why should I believe that any of their concerns have merit. Copy protection laws themselves have no merit, at least not our laws, not in terms of serving the public interest. Yes, their concerns have merit in terms of contributing to income inequality and helping the *IAA make money for doing no work, but that's not something I'm all that concerned with. Copy'right' should be substantially repealed and I don't care if these special interest groups go out of business, I hope they do.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Agai n, there is no reason for me to believe that anything these people say has any merit. If these people want credibility, they must earn it, simply asserting their credibility with statements like, "No, the concern they have expressed does have merit" doesn't earn them any credibility. and, so far, these people have done absolutely nothing to earn any credibility whatsoever and they have done so much to earn their mistrust and lack of credibility.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You're a small minority. The majority of people on this planet don't rip off music. Why should the laws be changed for you? That's some serious narcissistic and sociopathological thinking. Might want to get that checked out. I'm sure you're still under your parent's insurance, right?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

This is not what I said or implied. I was merely pointing out that others, after reasearching statutory and case law, can arrive at different interpretations. Dismissing them out of hand, coupled with words like "indefensible" and other pejorative comments, is in my view a harangue.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The issue was limited to a specific matter, one for which I have read numerous submittals by persons and organizations on both sides of the issue. Each have offered information in support of their positions that raise legitimate concerns.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Failed economics leads to chapter 11, who is there already?
Hint is not Google, but Warner Music seems the most likely to go next, how do you feel seeing the music empire croumble under their own weight?

I feel invigorated, is good to see people who brought so much misery to all of us go down like that, despite all the weasel moves, all the backdoor agreements, there is nothing saving them from that bitter end.

That should just be a very clear message that those who go against the grain will be hammered back into compliance with society, not the other way around I'm afraid.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Please Ahab, if it is just FUD and pirates are just a minority why don't you go give a talk to thousands of people and call the all freetards and thieves, then I want to see how you will get out of there.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

The treaty also creates a bad precedent by loosening copyright restrictions, instead of tightening them as every previous copyright treaty has done, said Brad Huther, a chamber director. Huther concluded in a Dec. 2 letter to the U.S. Copyright office that the international community “should not engage in pursuing a copyright-exemption based paradigm.

The only concerns the industry had was that copyright was being given an exception, they had no real problems and they couldn't even point to anything bad that could happen, all they had was wild assumptions and no merits to their claims, which we all knew even politicians saw that and that is why those exceptions passed and we never heard of anything bad happening after that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Of course it has, in the case of Idi Amin Dada he used the law to punish his opposition just like the industry is doing right now with people, innocent people by the way, for which their only crime was to have shared a music or a film with someone else, that is absurd and the fact that the law gave those people that power is just scary.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I ask this in all sincerity. Can anyone here point to a lawsuit filed by the RIAA that was directed towards anyone other than those who were engaged in the copying and distribution of copious amounts of files?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

(and, sure, some of those examples were directed towards such copying and distribution of content, but not all, but because many Techdirt IP maximists are dishonest trolls, I must type this disclaimer).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

(sorry, that one was the harmonica one, though it does prove my point. Too many examples to choose from I guess. The singing one was another one, it's somewhere on the links I provided in the previous post).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Also, in the book NoLogo by Naomi Klein (written in the year 2000, before modern file sharing was as big as it is now), under the section "Copyright Bullies"

Read where it says, "Copyright and trademark harassment is a massive and growing industry, and though its
effects are too sweeping to fully document, here are a few random examples."

All sorts of examples are given of copy'right' and trademark being abused to suppress free speech in ways that have little to nothing to do with the copying and distribution of copious amounts of infringing content, many cases pertain to free speech. Mattel tried to use copy'right' and tradmark to suppress dissenting views of the Barbies image and 'erase' parts of its history (ie: people presenting examples of Barbies history as "Barbie the cigarette model" as a Barbie criticism). The examples are probably too numerous to really iterate here, but it is a problem.

and if those dissenting comments had any merit and people visited the blog mostly to view those dissenting comments, wouldn't allowing them for the sake of allowing people to visit them undermine Mike's alleged agenda of spreading non-truth? Wouldn't that make the allowance of dissenting comments cause more harm to his alleged agenda than good? Wouldn't that encourage Mike not to have dissenting comments since allowing them causes more harm to his alleged agenda than good? You sound worse than a crazy conspiracy theorist. Please, at least try to reason through what you say, just for a fraction of a second.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"IP maximists"?

Explaining what the law "is" does not a "maximist" make. Many who practice in this field of law do not believe that many of the policy decisions embodied in the law make any sense (e.g., inordinately long terms, aspects of derivative works, etc.), but believe that a discussion of the law is not facilitated when its provisions are inaccurately portrayed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"In any human endeavor mistakes can be made."

You ask for examples, I give them, and then you discard them as mistakes. No, not all of them were mistakes, the **AA didn't mistakenly initiate many of its frivolous lawsuits and they didn't mistakenly tell the FCC to investigate an attempted boycott of their products. They did these things on purpose.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's the problem with discussing things with IP maximists. They are so entrenched in their predetermined beliefs, they don't even bother to read anything that contradicts it. They just ignore it. I post things that contradict what they say, these things have been posted many times before, yet, likely the same trolls, keep on saying things that have been refuted many times in the past. It's like they never learn, they make the same well refuted arguments over and over and they ignore the refutations and they ignore anything that contradicts their unsupported religion. I might as well be arguing with a computer program, sometimes I feel like I am.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

(in case you intentionally missed it before, when I linked to a post that linked to it the first time. However, I suspect you will ignore the above links and make the same arguments in the future. Why do I even bother, it's not like you will actually learn from any of this).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

(and, sure, not all of them were the RIAA specifically, but they do highlight how copy'right' law has generally gone too far and how politicians need to be working on alleviating its problems instead of listening to the RIAA and making them worse than they already are).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I ask this in all sincerity. Can anyone here point to a lawsuit filed by the RIAA that was directed towards anyone other than those who were engaged in the copying and distribution of copious amounts of files?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Explaining what the law "is" does not a "maximist" make. Many who practice in this field of law do not believe that many of the policy decisions embodied in the law make any sense (e.g., inordinately long terms, aspects of derivative works, etc.), but believe that a discussion of the law is not facilitated when its provisions are inaccurately portrayed."

This sounds like a cop out...

Here's the problem:

The maximalist are the ones that use the law to support a tyrannical view of government.

So let's define what exactly most do shall we?

1) The law is used to support copyright law for maximum amounts.

Now, the monetary gains in copyright law can be used to ill effect if you look at them. First, you have the performance rights organizations that are told they will get the maximum amount of money for copyright "protection."ASCAP makes it HARD for a business to prosper or innovate so they CAN make money. You also have them suing everyone with the absolute backing of the RIAA, and every nasty lawyer that wants to get paid more than a bar can possibly handle. Look for yourself and be disgusted

That's one reason I can't back the maximalism. This is in effect a legal ponzi scheme. The ones at the top, the Jermain Dupri's, the Dr. Dres or the Keegan Dewitts are supported. Meanwhile, other forms of music have literally been hurting because of copyright laws. And ASCAP is known for not paying anyone but the top portion. For all of the money they make (which used to be 16% but is now 11.6% of the money they bring in), they are only perpetuating a dying system.

This is one place that the supposed "artists are being hurt" argument becomes a fallacy.

I've heard of hundreds of clubs and bars that are hurt by ASCAP suing them out of existence.

Tell me... If copyright is supposed to be so great, why the hell do we have a board that almost always puts UP copyright but never brings it down? Yes, it is adjusted to inflation but when is it brought to a sensible level for people to actually operate? Further, why is it that we have to petition to participate in this aspect when it is going to affect every new business out there?

"But... But... It's for the artists!!!"

3) Law loopholes.

Constitutional rights are supposed to be inalienable. You have a right to remain silent. You have a right to explain yourself. You have a right to not pay excessive or unconstitutional amounts of restitution. You have a right to not have your privacy invaded be it third party or first party invasion. You have a right to face your accuser in a court of law, you have a right to have a fair hearing before anything of yours is taken away. You have a right to pursue your own happiness, not your own handout.

All of those rights have been subverted for an oddly misplaced look at blaming people for liking the digital alternatives out there.

But all of these subversions are negligent in the belief that maximalism is about subverting consumer rights for producer rights.

4) Law
This merges with the loopholes. The laws are looked at with almost absolute certainty that either borders or goes directly into absolutism. The problem with lawyer types is they only see black and white. Either it is A or it is B. If you did A, go to jail, do not pass go. If it's B, you're free to go. This is ALL problematic in seeing the problems with copyright laws in general. I've listed some here which forces someone to think more about what copyright is not doing.

It's not progressing the sciences. It's not helping artists. In fact, look at all of the things I've listed!

If anything it's allowing a bunch of parasites (ironically, what the "pirates" are supposed to be) to continuously use the system to the detriment of artist, fan and everyone in their wake.

I know you're just joking, but the fact that Mike allows videos that are likely to be infringing to be posted by his "staff" shows what utter B.S. all of his "concerns" were about being shut down by ICE for the videos he embeds. As I pointed out then, he'll continue to embed videos just as he always has because all that "fear" was just manipulative FUD. Yeah, Mike, you're really worried about it. Sure you are.

Re: Re: That's it

he'll continue to embed videos just as he always has because all that "fear" was just manipulative FUD.

Well, that, or he'll do it despite his concerns, because allowing fear to dictate your speech is a bad idea. It'd be like the fear of prosecution gave you the chills, and had the effect of self-censorship.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

In any human endeavor mistakes can be made.

More than half the time, apparently:

In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: That's it

Well, that, or he'll do it despite his concerns, because allowing fear to dictate your speech is a bad idea. It'd be like the fear of prosecution gave you the chills, and had the effect of self-censorship.

Boy, someone really should make up a term for that.

In other words, he's not really worried about it, and it was all grandstanding FUD from the King of FUD himself. Got it. The domain name seizures and the arrest of McCarthy really hasn't caused Mike to change a single thing that he does. The "concern" was fabricated. That much is perfectly clear.

Re: Re: Re: Re: That's it

In other words, he's not really worried about it, and it was all grandstanding FUD from the King of FUD himself. Got it. The domain name seizures and the arrest of McCarthy really hasn't caused Mike to change a single thing that he does. The "concern" was fabricated. That much is perfectly clear

I would prefer that you not speak to my motivations when you are clueless on the topic.

In fact, you are flat out wrong. I have adjusted various posts to remove content that I think is more difficult to argue is fair use. I have also refused to post a few things that would again involve content that I'd have a harder time arguing is fair use.

So, yes, I have been self-censoring.

Separately, I am willing to push the line a bit, because if anyone did try to seize this domain, I think that the negative long term effects on ICE's censorship campaign would be worth it. I think that taking down this site would hurt them a lot more than they realize.

So, seriously, don't try to claim that I haven't changed anything, when you don't know what you're talking about.

Re: That's it

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Copyright has none of these features. It doesn't make the economy less dangerous, the lack of it makes it more progressive because of the lack of restriction. Nobody will come to harm because someone decided to ignore limitations.

So you say. As a former journalist, whose work was copied or referred to in Forbes Magazine, (I was never able to locate the reference, so I can't comment whether it was "fair use" or plagiarism, though I always assumed the latter) I can assure you that people are hurt when copyright laws are broken. People who create work are entitled to be paid for its use, and the use without a reasonable payment constitutes theft, just as if the user had reached into the author's pockets and withdrawn the money. You obviously don't seem to grasp this concept, which likely makes you as guilty as the thief.